UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-18330194 before we ban and start destroying these dogs.

Of course my thoughts are for the poor child and hopes for a speedy recovery, I also feel sorry for the poor ignorant owners of the dogs whol probably didn't realise that they were likely to do this.

Yes, and of course this wasn't a Staffie as no true Staffie would do this . . .

And yes, I do have a porblem with this just as I have a problem with the attacks in Syria etc, after all all it takes for terrible things to happen is for a few goof men to good nothing.

In reply to KTT:

Either this is a troll, or or your ignorance is shameful.

The only part of what you have said that I agree with is the sorrow I feel for the child and there family.

In reply to Zac: Do you mean 'their'?

Perhaps you can explain why I'm ignorant?

p.s. you may want to google 'no true Scotsman' and the differce between 'there' 'they're' and 'their'.

In reply to Zac:

good grief, surely there isn't anyone left on here who doesn't know KTT's posting history on this topic....!

In reply to KTT:

he might have to spell "difference" correctly though....



gregor

In reply to KTT:
the differce between 'there' 'they're' and 'their'.

This, and the last paragraph of your first post, suggest that advice on spelling isn't perhaps your best line of attack.

As an aside, this thread has taught me that Swindon is in Wiltshire. My geographical knowledge of the UK below the top of the Peak District is woefully shoddy.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Cows 1 Tw@ Dog Owners 0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-18329310

He may want to run his profile through a spelcheker as well . ..

Now how long is it before he claims to be disleksic? (not that I', taking the piss out of those who genuinely suffer)

In reply to Tall Clare: There's a differnce between the odd typo and not knowing the difference between 'their' and 'there'.

In reply to KTT:

You could respond to what he said or you could pick apart the manner in which he said it - after all, you could understand what he meant.

In reply to Tall Clare: He was either suggesting I'm trolling which is wrong or suggesting my ignorance is shameful which is also wrong.

The poor child is a victim with probably life changing injuries, his family will no doubt be victims feeling the most dreadful guilt, largely as a result of their decision to have these dogs as pets.

His views are as misguided and ill informed as Bruce Hooker's on the subject of Syria, but he probably meant to say that 'Staffies are great family pets and known as "nanny dogs" so the dogs that did this couldn't possibly have been 'staffies'.

Now I know here come's Duncan Bourne and all the usual suspects to defend the indefnisble, FFS they should be on 'Fighting Talk'.

In reply to KTT:

For God's sake guys, it's the Jubilee................

In reply to KTT:
"Yes, and of course this wasn't a Staffie as no true Staffie would do this"

Is a staffie a type of dog?
if the above is answered yes then there is no way in hell you can know that it will not bite 100%

A nurse told me her dog wouldn't bite me, less than 5 seconds later the dog nearly chewed my knee off.
The thing with most dog owners they forget it is an animal.
The thing about people is ...... they forget they are animals.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Meh. You're not missing that much.

In reply to KTT: very sad story,poor little kid.

In reply to Tall Clare:


Woeful, or shoddy, but "woefully shoddy"? Really? Grammatically acceptable I suppose, but TOTAL OVERKILL :-P

In reply to KTT:

Started early tonight on the red then.

In reply to KTT: what is your vision for this thread,what would you like me to type that will help with your self actualisation?

In reply to David Hooper: Give him credit - he managed to draw a connection between dog attacks and Syria This is is something I'd been puzzling over for a while

In reply to KTT:

Although desparately sad and frightening for those involved I can't help feeling there are bigger issues out there.

My suspicion is that 'dangerous dogs' are a bit of a media created scare story.

In reply to Tall Clare:
As an aside, this thread has taught me that Swindon is in Wiltshire.

Most of the population of Wiltshire would dispute that fact, I personally put forward Swindon as proof of the non-existence of a divine creator.

In reply to KTT:

I'm not sure if you did it on purpose but:

*spellchecker
*dyslexic
*I'm

In reply to DaveHK: You think the media arranged for a dog to bite bits off the child?

In reply to KTT: oh ktt, you didn't really pace yourself on this one, did you. Maybe should have cracked open the red a bit later,instead of falling asleep with a sticky drool of red saliva coagulation your keyboard.

When you are feeling a little less sensitive,do let me know if there is anything I can help do to "grow" your thread for you. Support you,attack,personal insults,just say the word.......

(((tiptoes out and quietly closes door

In reply to David Hooper: Bravo, David!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Shhh!! You don't want to wake him you crazy person.

In reply to KTT:

dogs bite, cats scratch, horses kick, cows chase people, pigeons crap on them, sheep can give them ticks, small children can dribble on you or give you a right whack in the nuts if they're the wrong height.....but most importantly, KTT can bore you senseless with his endless ramblings about dogs. How long can this go on before we have him banned and forcefully destroyed?

You may not have noticed but humans hurt a lot more kids than dogs do, and it's humans that train dogs (badly). We'd be more sensible destroying bad dog trainers than destroying a certain breed because it's popular amongst the scrotes of society.

(obviously that's not something I'm suggesting, just making a point).

In reply to Scarab9:

A friend of mine took the mickey mercilessly for years after I told her to quietly move away from a herd of cows that were becomming restless and were effectively cornered by bushes. She thought I was being a right coward and ever after would say if in a scary situation something like 'not as bad as the day we were nearly trampled to death by cows'

Revenge didn't come till about 2004 when I sent her a newspaper clipping of a bloke killed by charging cows!!


Re dogs, surely if you ban the more aggressive dogs, the kind of person who goes for that sort of thing will just train other types to be aggressive. It's in all of them if mistreated after all.

All sounds a bit knee jerk to me, though it goes without saying sad for all those involved.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

How about bringing back dog licences.

The licences would have to be worn on the dog's collar so everyone knows the dog's got one, like a tax disc.

If it doesn't have one then the police can take it away.

Licences are issued to people provided they don't have a history of violence or animal mistreatment. Licences aren't available for certain types of dogs and for other breeds the owner has to demonstrate that they know how to look after a potentially dangerous animal.

In reply to Removed User:

There are already lots of dogs out there which is illegal to own. If people can already get away with keeping illegal dogs then how well will they it policed to keep dogs with a license? The black market will just boom more.

In reply to KTT:


It's a dog not a machine that can be programmed to turn off it's baser instincts. I suspect this dog wasn't a dangerous dog, per se, but a dog that , like all dogs, can just turn on someone.

In reply to KTT: Feel sorry for the little boy and hopes he makes a speedy recovery.
More checks on the household where a dog is going to go and its primary owner are needed. So many staffies are owned by thugs who want them as a status symbol (handbag dog) of how 'hard' they are and not as a pet that the dog is mistreated and trained to be aggressive by these idiots.
Its not a combination of the dangerous dogs act but its the owners that largely contribute to making a dog dangerous because they dont have a clue on how to look after dog and only want it as a symbol of how 'hard' (pathetic) they are.

In reply to Milesy:

Simple.

If the dog isn't displaying it's tax disc in public the police take it away and destroy it.

In reply to Removed User:

If the dog isn't displaying it's tax disc in public the police take it away and destroy it.

Would you take the time to check that it's chipped, or just shoot it straight away with no investigation at all?
Dogs can slip their collars and it wouldn't take much effort to scan it.
Additionally, the Police are no longer responsible for strays, the Local Council are.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I'd dispute that, not all dogs will just turn on someone. As an example I've grown up with Guide Dogs and have seen them pushed, pulled, poked at and stomped on by kids and they've never turned despite what could be considered some pretty serious provocation. That said I wouldn't leave any young kid on its own with a dog, although thats probably as much for the dogs sake as the sprogs!

In reply to DaveHK:
>

that comment is f*cking obscene and an insult to the many disfigured (and dead) children that have been victims of a dog attack.

In reply to Glyno:

You REALLY ought to read Blind Faith by Ben Elton.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I'll skip it if it's ok?

In reply to Wonko The Sane: WhY? Has IT got something ABOUT dangEROUS dogs in iT?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, JuSt a LoAd oF dAnGerouS people whO go ON and ON aboUt The PooR KiddiEs and OnE bloKe who ThinkS He's SmarTer tHan He reaLLY is.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Save us some time and tell us what you think he could learn from Blind Faith about dangerous dogs.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Nothing. But a lot about ill considered outrage on behalf of 'the kiddies'

In reply to Wonko The Sane: I can't decide whether I prefer his outrage or your reaction of "poor kid, ah well, nothing to see here, move on until the next time".

In reply to the thread:

How about making a law, pour encourager les autres, that says that owners are responsible if their dog does such things and can be sent to jail for it?

In reply to Removed User:

Executing cute Labradors and Golden Retrievers for not having a tax disc seems a bit extreme. Why not limit the summary death penalty to ugly or bitey breeds?

In reply to Sir Chasm: That's your choice. As I said, it's awful for those involved..... but my personal belief is that it is not a reason to do away with an entire breed of dog. How many of these cases happen per year? How many dogs are there?

I'm all for enforcing responsible ownership, but outright banning of certain breeds is not the right way to go in my opinion. If for no other reason than all dogs are dangerous if taught to be and many of these cases are with people who own a dog because of it's 'hard' image and possibly actively encourage it.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: If you read the thread you'll only see one person advocating banning, guess who? It's not the same person who seems to naively believe that newspapers shouldn't report small children being chewed.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

how ironic.

In reply to Sir Chasm: I don't think anyone was saying that it's ALL the media's fault...... but it can't be denied that things like this feature far more heavily in the like of The Sun, The Mirror etc than they do in The Guardian or The Times?

Is that telling us something do you think??
Media hype selling papers?

In reply to Wonko The Sane: If you think the story doesn't feature in the times, guardian or independent all it tells me is that you can't use google.

In reply to Sir Chasm: I always thought you quite intelligent until that comment. If you can point to where I said it did not feature in The Times or Guardian, I'll give you my apology.

But I'm pretty sure I wrote 'features far more heavily in the tabloids'

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Oh dear, I'm sorry to shatter your illusions. However, I wager that dangerous dogs garner more column inches in the broadsheets than the red tops. No apologies needed though.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Well I just tried Googling the story under various search tags and it appeared almost straight away for The Mirror and The Sun, on Google page 3 for The Telegraph. I searched The Guardian site for it and couldn't actually find it with the same wording.

I can't be bothered to search in a more serious way but it certainly seems far more searchable on the tabloids.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: You don't need to come on here just to proclaim that you can't use google very well. If you put in "guardian dog attack" it's the second result. Anyway, I'm quite happy to accept that if you "can't be bothered" to search properly I win. Because that's what the internet's for.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sigh. How very grown up you are.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: I win! I win! Makes sign of L on forehead.

In reply to Sir Chasm: You don't win, I'm just not playing, so ner.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Loser.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Not listening.

In reply to MJ:

Oh I don't know, maybe keep it for a week to see if anyone claims it, assuming it's lost and then either get it adopted or destroy it. There are a multitude of ways it could work.


Fine, see above.


Really, well that makes the problem insuperable then doesn't it.

Having a dog display the equivalent of a tax disc would make it easy for the police to deal with problem dogs. The kinds that they meet when visiting drug dealers and thugs and who are most likely to tear the faces off children.

In reply to Removed User:

Oh I don't know, maybe keep it for a week to see if anyone claims it, assuming it's lost and then either get it adopted or destroy it. There are a multitude of ways it could work.

That's how it is done in certain parts of the country at the moment.

In reply to RockAngel:

I'm 110% with you on that Rockangel; I think we all wish that for KTT

In reply to KTT: I think that anyone should be able to own these types of dogs on the condition that they are allowed to own 1 dog only and the minute the dog attacks anyone both the dog AND the owner are put down.. Cant say fairer than that..

In reply to Glyno:

What you and Sir Chasm have done here is confuse comment on an incident with comment on its wider context.

I think it is important if discussing the wider context to acknowledge that real people are involved.

This was why I prefaced my comment with one expressing sympathy for the victim but perhaps you missed that in your haste to express your outrage.

A scare story is any story where the level of coverage is out of proportion to the actual level of risk to the public. I'd speculate (and it's just speculation, please correct me if you can) that the number of children killed or maimed by 'dangerous dogs' (whatever that means) is actually quite small. This in no way denigrates the horror of being involved in an attack yourself and of course even one is one too many.

'Dangerous Dogs' stories also contain a number of emotive themes that are common to many scare stories, amongst others:

It could happen to you or someone you know. Yes it's possible but is it probable? Unfortunately the spin that goes on these stories is all on the possibility not the probability.

Deep seated fears. In this case the 'Wolf in your Livingroom'. Yes Rover looks unthreatening but what is a few thousand years of domestication against hardwired wildness?

If you've read this far and still think my comment obscene and think you can tell me why without resorting to invective then I'll happily discuss it with you.

If on the other hand you just want to indulge your righteous indignation then I'll bid you goodnight and leave you to get on with your colouring in in peace.

In reply to DaveHK: So do you think the papers shouldn't have reported this event? Or should "child eaten by dog" have been 3 lines on page 21?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No and no.

You have a strong attachment to hyperbole as a rhetorical device don't you?

In reply to DaveHK: Do you expect me to answer that?

You said
So I'm unsure whether you don't think the attacks happen or whether they do happen but are given too much prominence, hence my question asking you how they should be reported.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Not really. But your ridiculous statement invited a flippant response.

If you want sensible comments from others you need to extend the same courtesy to them.

Find someone else to argue with I'm done.

In reply to DaveHK: Don't forget your bat.